I sought clarification from Cosmo because I'm familiar with his posting style. I don't always agree with his political viewpoints but he's always been respectful towards me and others of color. It seemed so out of context that I had to ask for clarification. If it were certain other wonderful souls around here, I can't guarantee that I would have been as patient.
I understand entirely. Some wear their welcomes out faster than others with people, I grant you.
What's funny about the whole exchange is I misinterpreted his post because I missed reading one word. I would've felt pretty stupid if I would've jumped in with both feet and was wrong, huh?
And sometimes one or two words are all it takes.
I'm trying to become a little less tempermental in my approach to the ever hot topic of race. Keep in mind that this is a work in progress the next time I knee jerk at someone!
Cool. I think everyone has things to work on and things they can do better.
🙂 I know I do, and I'll tell you, every time I meet someone who thinks they have nothing to work on, nothing to improve about themselves -- those are the people I often regret meeting. I have a bad allergy to Gods.
But again, I commend you both for settling this like adults -- inquiring, discussing and proceeding. I hope more follow suit. It'd make this place a lot friendlier.
On to the topic...
I'd been avoiding throwing my two cents in because it seems so very grey an area, and a rare one I can't very well articulate my views on, I don't think...
I've been an avid comicbook fan for years, and so, have a great appreciation for continuity, and consistency of character. Generally, there's also an appreciation for variety, insofar as it doesn't conflict with canon (and so, the popularity of DC's "Elseworlds" line and Marvel's "Ultimate" line of comics). But deviance from character in a story that is considered as "in-continuity" upsets a lot of folks... When longtime Green Lantern Hal Jordan went mad, became "Parallax", and basically destroyed the universe, people got pissed. When Batgirl Cassandra Cain, a previously illiterate human weapon, who after a traumatic incident in childhood vowed never to kill, suddenly spun on a dime and decided that an assassin was what she was at heart, there was outrage.
When you make a movie based off of comicbook characters, there are varying degrees of desire for consistency depending largely on one's level of devotion to a character and it's portrayal being faithful to what one has known. For myself, I grew up with Batman being my favorite. As a child, I pretended to be Batman with friends -- we'd trade off on who would play Batman depending upon who was visiting whose house. I had a very clear idea of who and what Batman was very early, and part of that was rich, billionaire playboy Bruce Wayne who was unerringly portrayed as a white man in the comics and by them in TV and movies.
I think I would have increasing difficulty the further Bruce Wayne's appearance departed from causcasian, and with the degree to which Alfred's background departed from British, unless it was acknowledged from the get-go that this is a separate continuity. At the same time, I think I could deal with a black Batman
if the part was convincingly acted -- good acting does a lot... Still, for whatever reason, I could
never get around Alfred not being British. There's something about British culture for that role that could not be replaced to me... I don't know why.
In my opinion, Halle Berry could have done beautifully as Catwoman if the director had clue one about what he was doing. Alas, he did not, he acknowledged no history of the character (which has nothing to do with race), and produced a bomb.
I could get into having a black James T. Kirk if it was acknowledged from the beginning that this is an alternate reality that we're following. Within the parameters of the "Star Trek" series, this shouldn't be a problem. But trying to pretend it's the same continuity and retconning the pre-established race and history of the character grates.
I think there's a lot to be said in setting the context of a story such that alternate race roles can be explored. There's a strange, Hitchcock-like movie called "Suture" that features Dennis Haysbert playing the identical twin of a white actor whom he looks nothing like. And the other actors seem not to be able to tell them apart. On the surface, it sounds absurd, but in the context of it being avante-garde cinema, you just go with it, and it allows for an unusual feel to the piece you wouldn't get if the actors in fact looked alike or were of the same race.
Someone mentioned a Hamlet set in China -- if the whole thing was done so, royal families and all, fine... Just like "The Lion King" was the animated children's version of Hamlet for the African veldt. There's a lot to be said for having context to provide for exploring new races (and species) in these roles, as well as exploring new racial dynamics...
Imagine a "Huckleberry Finn" with races reversed and an African-American Huck always referring to his friend as "Whitey Jim" or "Cracker Jim"...
Beyond resetting the context for the characters, I think opting for different race portrayals will always be a bit of a gamble, mostly dependent on how strongly a race has been set as part of the character (you can't have a white person portraying the superhero "Black Panther" aka "T'Challa", a chieftain of a native African tribe), and the ferocity of fans to defend traditional continuity (Superman is an
alien from Krypton, but has always been depicted as caucasian in appearance, and likely always will be).
<-- Don't shoot me! I'm wearing your color!!!
